Spokes, Scotland’s leading cycle campaign group which covers Edinburgh and the wider Lothian area, has announced that it is to stop publicising events that require participants to wear a helmet in the face of what it describes as “the creeping growth of semi-compulsion.” The group’s stance regarding making helmets mandatory is in line with that of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RosPA), which says it is impractical to make use of helmets compulsory.

According to Spokes, the increasing requirement of organisers of events such as sportives and other rides for participants to wear a helmet – in some cases applicable to all riders, in others only to those below a certain age – fails to take into account arguments against helmet compulsion.

It also believes that the requirement to use a helmet reinforces the perception that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity, and is calling upon government-funded bodies such as Cycling Scotland and other organisations to cease using images in promotional material that only show cyclists wearing helmets.

Spokes maintains that in some types of crashes, wearing a helmet can actually lead to an increased risk of injuries, and also points out that research has established that drivers give less space to cyclists wearing helmets than those without – as established, most famously in a study carried out by Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath.

Instead of forcing cyclists to wear helmets, Spokes insists that the best way to improve the safety of cyclists would be to encourage more people to get riding, something that it claims is being undermined by there being too much emphasis on using a helmet.

Spokes’ position was outlined in the latest edition of the bulletin sent to its members, in which it said: “We are concerned at the creeping growth of semi-compulsion, for example charity bike rides insisting on helmets for young adults and government-funded websites picturing all or nearly all cyclists helmeted, thus creating a climate in which total compulsion could eventually happen.

“Helmet advertisers, promoters and government agencies bombard us with the benefits but, disgracefully, we are never told of the risks – although there is evidence on both sides, and crashes and injuries occur as a result of the risks of helmets.

“Compulsion, or one-sided promotion, is very wrong – even more so as they put people off the healthy choice of getting about by bike. Therefore, Spokes will not, after this [bulletin] issue, publicise charity rides or other events involving helmet compulsion. We call on all other organisations concerned about public health to do the same.

“Helmet manufacturers and sales outlets, in the interest of public safety, should have to make clear on boxes and in sales literature a helmet’s impact design speed (usually around 12mph) and the potential risks as well as benefits.”

In news report on Spokes’ move, The Scotsman pointed out that road safety charity Brake supports helmets being made compulsory, quoting senior campaigns officer Ellen Booth as saying: “We encourage cyclists to do everything they can to reduce risks, including wearing a helmet and high-visibility gear, and choosing the safest routes possible.”

However, Michael Corley, campaigns manager at RoSPA, argued against compulsion, saying “We do not believe it is practical to make the use of cycle helmets mandatory.”

In the section of its website devoted to the issue of helmets and the arguments for and against compulsion, national cyclists’ organisation CTC – itself strongly opposed to any such measures – points out that “several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety - and there are even cases where safety seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased.”

Helmets are mandatory for under-18s on all sportives registered with British Cycling, with the governing body’s guidelines adding that “senior riders are encouraged to wear helmets” and that “the organiser is at liberty to make it a requirement of the event that all participants wear helmets.”

The terms and conditions of Cycling Scotland’s own Pedal for Scotland ride say that “cycle safety helmets are recommended but not compulsory.”

It should be noted that in many instances the issue of whether helmets should be compulsory or not for all riders is out of organisers’ hands, with the requirement for participants to wear a helmet imposed by insurers.

Use of a helmet is recommended in the Highway Code, which says: "You should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened."

I would point out that it's often the insurance companies underwriting these events, rather than the event organisers themselves, who are responsible for the requirement to wear a helmet. they see it as mitigating their risk, no doubt, whether it actually is or not.

i would say that if it's so obvious that helmets are the major factor in the incidence of head injuries among cyclists, that you'll obviously be able to see that correlation between helmet wearing and head injuries from all the data around the world. i won't though

If I can legally ride a motor trike all day at 70MPH and not need a helmet I sure can ride my trike at 20 (well I used to be able to) without one. I've fallen and been knocked off a bike many times, broken several bones but never ever hit my head on anything. (that includes an "Imperial Crowner" off a high bicycle into the stand at Herne Hill. Landed shoulder first, Ouch! I always claim you can't FALL off a trike, you get thrown off, like off a horse.
My son, then 12 and I very publicly via a front page news item in our then local paper, declined to enter a charity ride because we were both required to wear helmets and as 'under 16' he HAD to be accompanied by an adult. "What utter nonsense" I said. "He is (was still then) allowed with my written consent to ride a 25 mile time trial on the main A1 dual carriageway (motorway standard)without a helmet". I now will not officiate in any event where helmets are compulsory, risk assessment is the responsibility of the rider (or parent/guardian.
The objection is compulsion.
More car occupants suffer from head injuries than cyclists and pedestrians in spite of seat belts (that encourage recklessness). Should they be forced to wear safety helmets too?

I have cycled for the last 35 years and can happily report I have never had an accident. I have been an A & E nurse for six years and seen the results of cyclist wearing and not wearing helmets. I have seen helmet wearers walk out with cuts and grazes, and I have seen non-helmet wearers who became kidney donors. I wear a helmet. It's my choice. I do believe it should be personal choice but people should be armed with the right information in order to make an informed choice.
In answer to an earlier thread, I believe it was the death of Andrea Kivilev that brought about the UCI decision to make helmet wearing compulsory in races. Not pressure from helmet manufacturers.

However, race organisers can make rules as they see fit and the choice is left to riders whether or not they wish to enter. This 'action' by Spokes will have no effect whatsoever and just makes them look stupid.

I have been an A & E nurse for six years and seen the results of cyclist wearing and not wearing helmets. I have seen helmet wearers walk out with cuts and grazes, and I have seen non-helmet wearers who became kidney donors. I wear a helmet. It's my choice. I do believe it should be personal choice but people should be armed with the right information in order to make an informed choice.

I totally agree that people should be armed with the right information to make an informed choice, but I hope you aren't implying that your anecdotes are this "right information". You have to show that your helmeted and helmetless cyclists are sampled from the same population, and this is very hard to do. Do the two groups have the same age and sex profile, and are they cycling the same routes? There are loads of possible biases. Young males are massively more risk taking (ask motor insurers). Are they less likely to wear a helmet? More sensible, experienced riders might be more likely to wear a helmet, and at the same time choose safer routes. Children from poorer families may be less likely to wear helmets whilst at the same time find themselves living and playing on more dangerous streets. Are your better outcomes for helmeted cyclists in A&E due to the protective effects of helmets, or are the helmets simply labelling a less risky part of the population?

I don't think cyclists should be compelled to wear a helmet but simply don't follow the rabid "I'd rather take the car than wear a helmet", "I've had accidents and never landed on my head", or "wearing a helmet could even make injury more likely" arguments. I can't think of a single logical (rather than emotional) reason not to wear my helmet every time I get on my bike. Be it round the lake, off to work or "completing not racing" the Tour of Wessex last weekend. Alone or in a group - I wear my helmet.

If the rules say you have to wear a helmet and you don't want to - don't enter the event. If you want to organise a "non-creeping growth of semi-compulsion" event good for you. Can I come and ride it with my helmet on? My head, my bike, my helmet, my choice. Your head, your choice.

The Dartmoor Classic sportive website states that as a UCI event you must wear a helmet. Obviously creaping compulsion isn't a problem for the UCI.

The helmet rule has not stopped head injuries in UCI events, or deaths. Wouter Weylandt died after suffering several injuries including a fractured skull, and he wore a helmet.

Of course, neither the Road.cc or Scotsman article mentioned what has happened in Australia. A cycle scheme like the London one is virtually unused because of the helmet law. if you search the web, the pictures of helmets attached to hire bikes have disclaimers inside. Plus several towns in Australia are passing by-laws allowing cyclists to ride without a helmet and there is a big passive resistance campaign. Mexico and Israel have repealed their legislation

This does not mean helmets do not save cyclists from severe injury, I also know several cyclists who have survived serious crashes because they were wearing a helmet, and I've seen the pictures to prove it.

I wear a helmet through choice. It needs to be left to the rider's choice. You don't get safer cycling by forcing cyclists to wear helmets.

Its all right. If you dont want to wear a helmet on the road - that's up to you. I'm willing to speculate that those that dont wear helmets have not yet had a crash. And when you do (crash)- it will be proof that Darwin was right. Natural selection will reduce the number of MORONS.

This does not mean helmets do not save cyclists from severe injury, I also know several cyclists who have survived serious crashes because they were wearing a helmet, and I've seen the pictures to prove it.

No picture can prove such a thing. A picture of a broken helmet proves that the helmet broke. It doesn't prove that serious injury was prevented, because a helmet can be severely damaged without having done its job. The helmet may only have prevented superficial damage (often the case, since just like modern cars, helmets are designed to easily crumple) or the head might not even have hit something (head + helmet is substantially bigger than just a head). Furthermore, a helmetless head is better at preventing rotational injuries, so in some crashes, helmets are more dangerous.

If you look at actual research, there is very limited evidence of bicycle helmet effectiveness. Researchers have to work the statistics very hard and then some studies show no effect and some a very limited one, which shows that at best, the effect of helmets is fairly limited. It's certainly not in the same league as motorcycle helmets (which are designed way more effectively than bicycle helmets) or seat belts, where the proof of effectiveness is overwhelming.

head + concrete = poorly head. head + helmet + concrete = no poorly head. it's not rocket science. and yes you should be allowed to choose what you want to do, but i can't see why taking a couple of seconds to stick a very light, comfortable, smart helmet on your nut is a big problem.

Absolutely agree. I crashed my bike at 28 mph, no one else involved, my slipped off the pedal, I went down, injured my shoulder and broke my "Catlike whisper plus" helmet. I hate to think what the result would have been without a helmet, a couple of seconds to fit on my head.

There are risks in everything (even in writing this post...) but my head has the scars to prove that wearing a helmet is worthwhile.

Even if cycling isn't inherently dangerous (compared for example to angling) other road users definitely are. There have even been cases where drivers have deliberately driven into cyclists (at least one in is prison now for murder).

Also, it gives a very bad impression of cycling if they don't wear a helmet. There was never this amount of fuss against motorcycle helmets and they are a lot heavier.

If cycling is indeed a sport of self-abuse why aren't more cyclists sectioned under the mental health act?

Also, it gives a very bad impression of cycling if they don't wear a helmet. There was never this amount of fuss against motorcycle helmets and they are a lot heavier.

Why does it give a "very bad impression of cycling"? I have no idea what you mean.

Because a motorcycle has a motor, you don't have to pedal it, so you don't get hot. Indeed the problem on a motorcycle is often to keep warm, as you have a lot of cooling air flowing over you. Motorcycle helmets are completely enclosed, cover the back of the head and temples (arguably the more vulnerable parts of the head, which are not protected by bicycle helmets), giving much more protection. And they need to, since the speeds involved are so much higher.

The helmet may only have prevented superficial damage (often the case, since just like modern cars, helmets are designed to easily crumple) or the head might not even have hit something (head + helmet is substantially bigger than just a head).

Actually bicycle helmets are not designed to crumple. They would be much better if they did. They are made from expanded polystyrene foam, which is strong in compression. It fails by cracking open, which doesn't absorb much shock. I can't believe that bicycle helmet manufacturers haven't come up with better materials.

Having just returned from a short break in a country where cycling participation is much more widespread - and next-to-nobody was wearing a helmet - I'd offer the following observations:

1. The UK has relatively few utility cyclists; here cycling is more of a lifestyle choice, rather than just a way of getting from one place to another cheaply and effectively. In more enlightened areas, most who cycle don't see themselves as 'cyclists' any more than I'm concsiously aware of being a 'pedestrian' when I'm walkking to the shops.
2. The UK's cycling facilities really are laughably awful.
3. The above factors push UK cyclists into becoming 'vehicular', and exposing themselves (or rather, ourselves, for I am one) to much greater risk by sharing roads with dangerous road users and, by necessity, travelling at higher speeds.

So, I always wear a helmet. I've personal experience of the benefits, and I'm yet to be convinced that the evidence against helmet-wearing makes sense. UK roads are dangerous. If I lived in Copenhagen or Amsterdam or Berlin or Barcelona - places that make real steps to integrate cyclists into their trasnport infrastructure - then I'd be happy to pootle along at 8mph in my segregated cycle lane with the wind in my hair. Very happy indeed.

However, I live in Manchester. A wonderful place in many other respects, but not a cyclists' safe-haven. I share the roads with all manner of morons and must constantly be aware of inattentive pedestrians, road-hog bus-drivers, flamboyant u-turn artistes, swinging car-doors, red-light jumpers, pot-holes, broken glass swathes, mobile-phone addicts, indicator-forgetters, cutter-uppers and mindless-abuse-hurlers, among other hazards. For these reasons, I wear a helmet.

But mandatorily? No - we must aspire to the state of affairs which would not require cyclists to feel as I do. To give way to mandatory helmets would be to concede that cycling in the UK will always be far more dangerous than it should be. Therefore, I'm with Spokes on this. We're in danger of a sleepwalking our way towards legislation, and this is an important prod in the chest to cycling activists.

two of my friends have been involved in bad crashes recently, one wearing helmet was in a coma for two days also broke their collarbone the other not wearing helmet broke his shoulder and cracked a vertebrae in his neck. i do not wear a helmet and i am sick of people telling me that i should wear one otherwise i will die or get brain damage. the worst offenders for this are healthcare workers who quite often after telling you that you will surely die go outside for a smoke! i have been riding a bike for over 40 years now and have been knocked off by cars and a hgv and fallen off through stupidity and have never hit my head. the only morons are the people who think they have a right to tell other people what to do.

Personally I love the 'iron spike argument' (veseuner above). My father in law always said that to reduce accidents drivers should be in a glass bowl in front of the car, difficult to argue with! Not saying it is practical! I think that the safer you feel the more risk you take; simple. That said I have got used to wearing a helmet and always wear one. I just don't think they should be compulsory. It makes no sense to me to have police officers enforcing rules for peoples own safety and this goes for seat belts and motorcycle helmets. I would much rather see them investigating/preventing incidents like the 8yo who died or the stolen bikes (Today's top stories). When this sort of thing never happens then the authorities could consider rules for our own safety. Hot topic this isn't it!

Personally i always wear one. But Choice is important. They should not be made compulsory but can understand why Event Organisers would say this is so, they are trying to cover themselves in every way they can.

The UCI is the world racing organisation. To win races, you may have to take risks.

Audaxes, club runs, randoneés, Sunday rides to a country pub for lunch, commutes and trips to the shops are not races. There are no prizes or jerseys at stake, so you do not need to take risks.

I am on the anti-helmet side of the debate, don't wear one when not racing and agree with your point that social rides don't require one.

However, while I've not done so so far, I am tempted to wear one when doing sportives. As generally you end up in a group with a couple of friends and a couple of randoms.
No idea who they are, how they ride, how they point out obstacles (if at all), their bike handling in groups etc.
It is an added element of risk to be considered when choosing when & where to wear a helmet.

head + concrete = poorly head. head + helmet + concrete = no poorly head. it's not rocket science. and yes you should be allowed to choose what you want to do, but i can't see why taking a couple of seconds to stick a very light, comfortable, smart helmet on your nut is a big problem.

That is the whole point, rotational brain injuries are the most common fatal accidents for cyclists and wearing a helmet makes these injuries worse, the helmet adds surface area so when your head hits the ground spinning, it gets a worse rotating shock which can be deadly. At least that's my understanding of the situation.

Not so simple as just nutting the ground.

Another factor is that some drivers drive worse around cyclists that are wearing helmets, that alone makes wearing a helmet more dangerous. Approx 25% of cyclist deaths are caused by someone driving too close to the cyclist.

Head (with or without helmet) without concrete is even better. Crashes are very rare and can be avoided (even if you're bring paid to ride like a nutter i.e are a professional racing cyclist).

You're absolutely right, all crashes are avoidable. That's why I took so much time and effort planning each and every one of my spills over the years; would've been tragic if I'd missed a good opportunity for skin loss or concussion. That said, I'm getting on a bit now so reckon I'll take the easy option and just choose not to have any more accidents.

It's OK to say that you don't agree with making helmets compulsory (is anyone actually saying this?) but saying "a helmetless head is better at preventing rotational injuries, so in some crashes, helmets are more dangerous." and "there is very limited evidence of bicycle helmet effectiveness" weakens your argument and make you sound like a nutter. Deriding anecdotal evidence is also illogical. I went over the handlebars at speed and hit the back of my head and shoulder on the road. Compound fracture of collar bone requiring surgery and a titanium plate and a helmet that looked as it it had been hit with a sledgehammer. Medical team said my helmet saved my life. No doubt you will disagree. I didn't suffer any "rotational injuries" and I don't need any further "proof of effectiveness".

The logical argument against compulsory helmet use (which I don't think many propose or support) is personal choice not illogical arguments about helmets being ineffective or worse dangerous. My head, my helmet, my choice.

Anecdote #4,583: 2 and a half years ago I was taken off on Duke St Hill in that London and although my chin was only slightly scuffed the polystyrene of my helmet was visibly squashed flatter where it took the brunt of my fall. That would have been goodnight Vienna without the helmet.

Unfortunately the rest of me wasn't covered in polystyrene so I broke both hands and did so much damage to my knees that I still can't even rearrange the fridge without a cushion.

Well done Spokes! About time someone showed a bit of guts and challenged the creeping compulsion.
Nobody has yet proven that helmets make a significant difference ("I fell off and skinned my knees and the helmet saved my life" anecdotes do not count, even if they are true!) Boris bikes have been making thousands of helmetless journeys in some of the most unpleasant traffic in the country and guess what, there have been no queues of head injuries in A&E, not a blip on the statistical radar... but what is easily provable is that selling lumps of polystyrene is a HUGE moneyspinner, no brainer for the big companies to push them hard then, even though teaching proper use of primary would do far more to improve peoples safety...

Now all that probably comes across as rabidly anti-helmet, but surprise, I'm not, I wear one almost always when MTB'ing and often in traffic, but I'm a grown up and get to choose.

Spokes are bang on and have gone up massively in my estimation for making this stand for commonsense.

I work in A and E.
Cyclists injured are surprisingly rare, and most commonly injuries are of the limbs. 1 or 2 a month
Night time alcohol related head injuries are very common, 4 - 6 a week
Heart attacks are very common, 4 -6 a day, about half are in people who should have a healthy heart due to age.
Sports related injuries including head injuries are pretty common, especially in the football season. 2 -3 a week on average.
Car crash related injuries are also very common, and involve the most serious trauma frequently encountered. Head trauma easily preventable by protective headgear is astonishingly common.
In none of the high risk activities are helmets promoted or required, except motorcycling and building sites. Severe motorcyclist injuries are spinal, the head is usually well protected. Building site head injuries are still the most common cause of injury from that type of work place.
Why the fuss about cyclists and helmets is a mystery to me, it seems like a conspiracy to make cycling seem unattractive.
Good call Spokes

In response to the "helmet saved my life" brigade: I'm glad it did. A friend of a friend was told that the only reason she didn't die (rather than receive severe injuries) in the car crash that killed her husband who was driving was that she was drunk. So being drunk saved her, so everyone should be drunk when in a car? If the driver is drunk, s/he is more likely to crash, but also more likely to survive the crash.

Some people who wear cycle helmets may risk compensate and therefore be more likely to be involved in an incident and be injured in the helmet vicinity. If they are not wearing the helmet properly, this is even worse.

If everyone wore a helmet and had perfect (not over ambitious) expectations of what benefits it could deliver, perhaps there would be no risk compensation by the helmetee, but there would still be risk compensation by other road users. If we could eliminate that, on paper or in real life, we would be left with the balance between injuries that helmets make worse or more likely, and injuries that they reduce the impact of.

So, whilst experience teaches that helmets have been beneficial in some crashes, it does not follow that helmets are a benefit overall. They may or may not be and we should not pretend otherwise however much we would like it to be true.